More Info on Debian.org Security Breach

mbanck writes "James Troup (part of the Debian System administration team) has published more information on the recent compromise of four debian.org machines. The attack vector seemed to be a sniffed password of an unprivileged account, from which the attacker somehow managed to gain root and install the suckit rootkit and crack the other machines. As the machines were fairly uptodate with respect to security, an as-of-yet unknown local root exploit might be in the wild, so keep an eye on your boxen.Note that the main ftp archive running on a sparc machine was not compromised, so the exploit might not yet be ported to non-i386 architectures."

Comments

Boxen..

[WeblionX]

Here come the comments about the word "boxen..."

Re:Boxen..

[Chuck Chunder]

Someone needs their ears boxen.

Re:Boxen..

[Stormie]

If you call your computers "boxen", I hope they get cracked and rootkitted.

Re:Boxen..

[AndroidCat]

It's a perfectly good middle-english plural. Perhaps they just have rather olde boxen to develop on?

Re:Boxen..

[inode_buddha]

Damn... I was just recovering from all those 20-year-old "virii"...

Re:Boxen..

[nyctopterus]

It's a perfectly cromulent word. A noble linux emboxens the smallest geek.

Re:Boxen..

[Li0n]

Debian = Debra + Ian Murdock

Re:Boxen..

[Frymaster]

while we're at it... it's a little known fact that "suse" is a german anagram for "sue us" - a direct jab at sco.

and now that i'm on a "roll" - why the hell aren't the santa cruz organization and stanford university networks actually in santa cruz or stanford university? at least ibm is international...

Re:Boxen..

[Mattcelt]

No kidding? I had just assumed that someone had taken up on Brian Regan's pluralizations, like boxen and moosen.

Another of my favorites:
"I before E except after C
and when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh
or on weekends or holidays or all throughout May
and you'll always be wrong no matter what you say!"

He's a very funny comic. There's a fan site that's worth checking out too.

Human Error

[jefbed]

This incident reminds us of the importance of password security. It is sad to see one weak password responsible for such a breach. I think that it would be a good idea for the future to move away from the traditional unix password. An appropriate replacement would be something similar to RSA passphrase mechanism used by secure shell. A random passphrase with a minimum lenght would be idea. The user is the greatest security hole.

Re:Human Error

[Tyler Eaves]

Random passphrase?

Repeat after me: The best password is the one that isn't stikie'd to the monitor and/or keyboard.

Re:Human Error

[SugoiMonkey]

I say we cut out the user.

Re:Human Error

[ctr2sprt]

Clearly we need some way to move away from traditional passwords, but RSA keys isn't the way to go. They're impossible to remember, which means you need to store them on a computer. That makes them vulnerable to copying. You can password-protect them, of course, but then you're in the same situation as before (actually worse, for the same reason /etc/passwd is less secure than /etc/shadow).

That's not to say that RSA or some similar system won't be part of a good solution... but there definitely needs to be some other component. (For example, the private key might be encrypted by a biometric signature or keycard or similar. While that still leaves the system vulnerable to physical attacks, it more or less eliminates network-based ones as long as you use secure protocols.)

Re:Human Error

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, I dunno if you noticed, but it wasn't a password alone that did this much damage. The account broken into was unprivellaged, meaning it was just a simple user account.

In theory, a secured system can have this happen to it and the attacker will have fun deleting a single home directory before they run out of damage to do.

In practice, a single local privelage escalation attack is all it takes. Maybe this will end up being a good thing in the end, we get to find a previously unknown local root exploit, fix it and improve the Debian security practices, all in one move.

Re: Human Error

[Black Parrot]

> This incident reminds us of the importance of password security. It is sad to see one weak password responsible for such a breach.

I'm apologize - I never imagined that they would guess 'mydebian'.

Re:Human Error

[buffer-overflowed]

Yea, if it weren't for those users, my network would be perfect. No complaints = no problems. That's how I know my network is perfect, during vacations, no one complains about anything, so it must be perfect.

Re:Human Error

[jkrise]

Will you cut off your head if you got a headache?

-

Re:Human Error

[jkrise]

While that still leaves the system vulnerable to physical attacks, it more or less eliminates network-based ones as long as you use secure protocols.

In other words, you've achieved nothing. The issue here is the protocols, NOT passwords. Since these are not unnder the control of users, we should assume that any netwroked resource is insecure by design.

-

Re: Human Error

[Black Parrot]

> Random passphrase? Repeat after me: The best password is the one that isn't stikie'd to the monitor and/or keyboard.

When it comes to internet-based attacks, my yellow stickies are the securest files on my system!

Re:Human Error

[Anonymous Coward]

In practice, a single local privelage escalation attack is all it takes. Maybe this will end up being a good thing in the end, we get to find a previously unknown local root exploit, fix it and improve the Debian security practices, all in one move.

So when an exploit is found in Windows, it is considered a bad thing that shows how lame of an OS it is.. but when it is found (or not?) in Linux it is a good thing?

Ooooook. I know I know, I must be new here.

Re: Human Error

[Copid]

My God! That's the combination to the lock on my luggage...

Re:Human Error

[blanks]

It wasn't a weak password, it was from a sniffed password. But then again no matter how good your password is, if your not encrypted (and in some cases even if) your password is weak.

Re:Human Error

[pkaral]

Where information security work really breaks down is when password theory meets the average user. Personally, I had to try approx. 15 times to come up with a password that would be accepted by the system at my university, and by then it was so complex that I had to write it down to remember it. (As usual, there had to be 3 types of characters, but in addition, there where heaps of rules saying such things as "caps at the start or end of the word don't count".

We must find a systemic solution that includes the users as part of the system. The main requirement for a new password regime is therefore that it must work within the bounds of users' bad habits and limited capacity for recalling a gazillion passwords which change regularly.

Re:Human Error

[God! Awful 2]

(For example, the private key might be encrypted by a biometric signature or keycard or similar.

I have yet to see a biometric signature that would solve this problem. Generally speaking, in biometric identification, information about the fingerprint/retina is stored on the disk and then compared against the data that is read in. The biometric information is not used *AS* the encryption key. So a biometric signature is just like a really big password, except that if someone cracks your password you can change it, but you can't (easily) change your fingerprints.

-a

Re:Human Error

[BJH]

Dunno, but I might cut off your head if I had a headache.

Re:Human Error

[dasunt]

Er, the problem with biometric identification is that (1) its not testing who you are, just that the digital input matches some value and (2) you can't change what its testing.

You can't change who you are. Thus, once the key is compromised, it stays compromised.

Re:Human Error

[Anonymous Coward]

So when an exploit is found in Windows, it is considered a bad thing that shows how lame of an OS it is.. but when it is found (or not?) in Linux it is a good thing?

Yes. In the past, Windows exploits get found one of two ways. The first way is when a virus is found in the wild. The virus is deconstructed, then Microsoft does a cost analysis to determine if it's worth patching the vulnerability that enables the virus. If so, then a binary only patch will be issued. The first you'll hear of it is when you're able to download the patch. The second way is when a white hat hacker or security analysis team at some college find an exploit. If they go public with it, they're criticised for not giving time for Microsoft to develop a patch. If they go to Microsoft with it first, then the cost analysis process starts, only because the public at large doesn't know a problem exists, there's a much smaller chance a patch will be issued. In either case, the patch may or may not work, and it may or may not break your system. Caveat emptor.

When an exploit is found in Linux, it gets fixed. The cause of the exploit gets scrutinized world over, and other developers privately consider whether their software might have the capacity to be exploited in the same way.

Re:Human Error

[hdw]

It is sad to see one weak password responsible for such a breach.

Eh? Why is everyone talking about a weak password?
The article says sniffed password.

I assume that they're not using cleartext password authentication which means that it wasn't sniffed on the wire, it's was sniffed on a (compromised) box the some user used to log in.
And if the clientbox is compromised it doesn't matter if you use password or a passphrased key.
Even keeping your key on something removable (like an USB keychain) doesn't help you, the cracker can easily snarf both key and passphrase :(

The only way to bypass that would be an external pinpad style device.

//hdw

Re: Human Error

[cperciva]

When it comes to internet-based attacks, my yellow stickies are the securest files on my system!

Well, you'd want to make sure they weren't stuck somewhere visible to random passers-by.

But you always have to keep in mind that any form of security is only as strong as its user interface; if someone can access a password stickied to the bottom of your keyboard, they can probably attach a keylogger as well.

Re:Human Error

[Xerithane]

A good method: Easy mental ciphers.

You pick a passphrase that you use for all of your systems. You then pick a unique seed for each system. Then, you do some quick mental math on it (pick an algo of your choice, just make it simple) and then you have the effective security of two passwords + unknown algorithm. It will make all of your passwords invulnerable to dictionary attacks (unless a rare circumstance has your resulting password being "password" or something)

For example, if you have a pass phrase of "MYBOXISSECURE" then you can use the box name as a seed, lets call the box "DEBIAN" and have the algorithm block the seed and then subtract, modulo 26.

MYBOXISSECURE
DEBIANDEBIAND
-------------
I'm too tired to do this and I'm on my windows sytem without perl.

Then reverse it or something. Walla! Pseudo-random passwords. Works great, and after a few times you will memorize the keystrokes and you won't need to do it by hand. You can even have a standard system for the passphrases amongst an entire group for the root password, so each system can have a different root password that everybody can just figure out as long as they know the passphrase. In addition, if you want to remove someone from the loop, just change the passphrases and redistribute to the trusted source.

It's a hack solution for the weak-password problem.

Re:Human Error

[swillden]

The biometric information is not used *AS* the encryption key.

And there's a good reason for that: It wouldn't work. Every time a biometric is scanned, the result is different. Biometric matching is hard because it's a process of evaluating the "closeness" of the livescan to the stored template and then deciding whether the two are close enough to be considered the same.

This means that trying to extract a set of bits from the scan which you could be sure would be the same every time is very difficult, and likely wouldn't net you many bits to use as a key. A set of bits that changes a little every time doesn't make a useful key.

Given some sort of a secure processor, you can store the key and the biometric template in there, and program it to refuse to use the key until it has been presented with a biometric scan which it considers to be close enough to the template. That gets you about half way to security, now you just need to find a way for the secure processor to verify that the livescan it receives is fresh, and not replayed. Oh, and it would be good if you could also be sure the livescan is a *live* scan. And don't forget to secure that template database well.

Making biometrics secure is hard. In practice, this means biometrics are only useful in two situations. The first is very low security, where the biometric is being used to raise the level of security from very, very low to very low. The second is very high security, where the biometric is to augment some other authentication methods, or when verification is only done in a very controlled environment, i.e. where you're watched closely by a human guard who knows how to ensure you're not trying to fool the scanner.

Re:Human Error

[orcrist]

For some bizzare reason, I haven't found it necessary to be able to do that. All you need to do is learn how to make hard-to-guess, easy-to-remember passwords:
Choose a quote or sentence, take the first (or second if you really want it to be hard) letter of each word, use numbers instead of letters for words like 'to', and alternate capitalization for the rest:

"To be or not to be, that is the question" becomes
"2bOn2BtItQ" which should defeat any dictionary based attacks, and is incredibly easy to remember. Of course I also choose somewhat more obscure quotes or make up an interesting sentence.

-Chris

Re:Human Error

[Cthefuture]

Meh, nothing is perfect. There's no point in arguing that. There's always a way to get into a system.

I can't remember the last time somebody on the Internet teleported beside me to look over my shoulder.

Instead you need to worry about what level of expense and trouble you want to go through for your particular needs. A smartcard is fairly simple, cheap, and provides decent security. If you go with one of the newer USB cards then you don't even need a reader, the card plugs right into your USB port. It's perfect for storing SSH keys and using that for authentication.

In a nutshell - somehow

[evil_roy]

Quote from the article:

"Somehow they got root on klecker and installed
suckit."

What follows is an interesting read - but the guts are in that 'somehow'.

Re:In a nutshell - somehow

[Kulic]

You're absolutely right. For some reason, everyone else seems to be overlooking the fact that there is (or appears to be) an unknown root exploit out there.

Yes, you can probably guess/crack/social engineer a password if you try hard enough. That's why security is about layers, compartmentalisation and multiple types of protection, not just a single password.

If this was your box, would you be more worried that someone had managed to sniff an (unprivileged) password? Or that any one of your users can now root your box? I know which one I would lose sleep over.

Here's to hoping that the root exploit is found and patched nice and quick. Even better if it something else that's been missed and is fixed in the latest patch.

Re:In a nutshell - somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, everyone else seems to be overlooking the fact that there is (or appears to be) an unknown root exploit out there.

Uhm, did you read James' post? Here's a quote:

Unfortunately due to the fact there is (I believe) an unknown local root exploit in the wild, we can't yet unlock the Debian accounts.

Surely this constitues something else than "overlooking" the root exploit? Deciding to keep the Debian accounts disables effectively stops the entire developement of Debian. Nobody has been able to upload packages in the last week, and lots of services are down.

James could have unlocked the accounts to make the developement pick up again rapidly (which would probably would be the only option in a corporate setting -- there's a release schedule that must be kept at all costs), but the admins are being thorough on this one.

In summary: James (and the other admins) are keeping the entire Debian Project in suspense for the purpose of tracking down this local root compromise and preventing it from being exploited again. You might want to think about that for a second, and see if "overlooking [the] unknown root exploit" is applicable here.

Re:In a nutshell - somehow

[unixbob]

It's worth bearing in mind tho that this may not necessarily be a bug in the OS. The wrong permissions on a sudoer's file for example could have caused this. The assumption going around here is that there is an unknown root exploit going around which involves buffer over runs, kernel exploits, etc. It's just as likely that someone has made a mistake with their config and mistakenly left their server wide open

Re:In a nutshell - somehow

[Basje]

Your conclusions are absolutely right. In a corporate setting, this may be more of a hazard than it is now, because Debian can afford the downtime.

Yet you may have overlooked detail: development has not stopped. People keep working on updated packages, they just cannot submit them. If the problem can be solved, the productivity lost won't be that great.

This is actually one of the great benefits that open source offers, at least for succesful OS projects. It is not just a benefit of the excellent project management in this case.

Diebold, take note

[RealProgrammer]

All vendors and site administrators should take note of the openness with which the problem was dealt.

When I go to buy a car, a computer, or a stereo, and the saleslizard is cagey about any problems that come up, my trust level goes down. If they tell me all about all the problems with the thing they're selling before I even notice them, my trust level goes up. It's like a cool drink on a hot summer day.

Contrasting with Debian, how long did it take to find out that Diebold ATMs had been hit by the Nachi worm?

I'm now more inclined to trust Debian, and less inclined to trust Diebold.

Re:Diebold, take note

[jkrise]

More importantly, the openness of Debian is a much more important factor here. When I read these lines in the article:
The attack vector seemed to be a sniffed password of an unprivileged account, from which the attacker somehow managed to gain root and install the suckit rootkit and crack the other machines. As the machines were fairly uptodate with respect to security, an as-of-yet unknown local root exploit might be in the wild, so keep an eye on your boxen.
I got the distinct impression that Slashdot is transformig into a FUD channel for unsuspecting readers.

The fact that a 'clean' Linux system can be backed up and restored from any media, is of more relevance and importance to users. EVERY system connected to the internet has potential unknown vulns, those running Windows are often unpatched and have no disaster control system as well.

Viewed from this perspective, I don't think we need to keep an eye on our boxen just the backup tapes / disks/ CDs.

-

Re:Diebold, take note

[oo_waratah]

"Viewed from this perspective, I don't think we need to keep an eye on our boxen just the backup tapes / disks/ CDs."

But how will you know unless you monitor it? Being able to recover a problem is a long way from identification.

Re:Diebold, take note

[holy zarquon's singi]

Root (noun): Australian vernacular for "to have sex". So yes, getting rooted by someone you trust /is/ important.

This attack has obviosly shocked the comunity.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Since Debian (even for those smart ones out there using slackware, like i do) is really considered one of the real distros, if we hear that redhat has been atacked, we would just say that they diserve it and go on, it would be delivered in the respective mail list, and that was it.
But this attack has a psicological impact. Debian itself has been attacked, and it seems to be a bug exploited just in part, on the other side, there are updates that the compromised machines never got aplied, and other big mistakes like a non-tared backup lying arround, with the original owner / permissions mask. This is really more that enough to get any netadmin running Debian to get paranoid.

One recommendation

[heironymouscoward]

Off-site logging of all accesses.

One of the first things that get wiped in an intrusion are the logs. All access logs should be copied in as near real-time as possible to a remote server that is not accessible from the machine being logged, i.e. a drop-box.

Re:One recommendation

[Malcontent]

Why not run something like LIDS. You can lock access to your logfiles so that only certain processes can run them.

It looks like a bit of work to set up and administer but you'd think that an organization like Debian would make sure all their computers would be running it.

Re:One recommendation

[SuperQ]

that's the whole point of LIDS.. LIDS provides kernel hooks to add extra level of access restrictions to the root UID. read up on LIDS before you speak.

Re:One recommendation

[suss]

One of the first things that get wiped in an intrusion are the logs

Try wiping logs printed out on a matrix printer...

Re:One recommendation

[Celvin]

To make sure my logs are secure, they are automaticly:

• posted to several usenetgroups
• posted as random comments to /.-stories (Along with some random anti-SCO/Microsoft propaganda so I don't get modded down and don't lose karma :)
• uploaded to the linux kernel CVS
• sent as email to all my friends

This way they are mirrored as many places as possible and hopefully cached by Google. Wipe that out!

Re:One recommendation

[larien]

With physical access, all bets are off at the best of times.

Printing logs is a good idea in some circumstances; you will have a record of all actions and a remote intruder has no method of editing those logs. The main downside is the amount of paper it could use, plus it has to be kept supplied with paper & ink.

Great

[headbulb]

Right as I am downloading Debian.
I will check the md5sum.

Anyways Something to be said about passwords.. I am getting sick of passwords.. I have looked at the RSA keychains, But they cost too much.

So I ask are there any good one time password systems out there. That are opensource.. I have looked at going with smart cards but again with the money. (not to mention overkill for me)

I have found a few but none with a keychain.. I don't mind paying for a keychain, but I want the software to be opensource.

Re:Great

[Qzukk]

Probably the closest you'll get to a "good" system would be something like S/Key or Opie (debian packages: opie-server, opie-client, libpam-opie - Use OTP's for PAM authentication) for generating and using a one-time-pad of password systems. The issue in this is that you must generate the pad in some secure fashion, if someone sniffs your pad because you downloaded it over the network, you've lost.

You could easily keep a pre-generated giant pad itself on a usb drive or something similar.

Password was *sniffed*

[enosys]

Apparently the password was sniffed . This generally implies that it was obtained through monitoring network traffic and seeing it trasmitted in cleartext. A strong password wouldn't help here; only a good protocol would.

This was both user and admin stupidity I guess. Admins who care about security shouldn't permit access through cleartext passwords and users shouldn't send their password in cleartext if they care about their account. Unfortunately many users don't know about this risk.

Re:Password was *sniffed*

[TheRedHorse]

Why assume it was a cleartext password? It could of been encrypted, captured and crack via brute force or some other method.

Re:Password was *sniffed*

[Anonymous Coward]

The password was sniffed by the trojaned sshd on an unrelated machine.

Re:Password was *sniffed*

[radargeek]

Ah, but the SucKIT rootkit is particularly useful as it captures all tty i/o at the kernel level: all interaction with sshd is captured in a "sniffer" file. No decryption or packet sniffing needed- the attacker owns the system completely if they have installed SucKIT. If you don't trust a computer that you have ssh'd into, never ssh or scp from the untrusted computer back into your trusted systems. If the untrusted computer has been compromised, any login sessions that you have from the untrusted computer will expose the passwords if a SucKIT rootkit has been installed.

Re:Password was *sniffed*

[TheDarkener]

Thank you. I was reading parent posts going, "Umm, I don't remember hearing anything about any pw cracking being possible since it was an encrypted connection or whatever, so if it was sniffed it obviously was done in clear-text. The people who did the foresnics on those boxes (and who wrote the paper) simply would have stated that. I have the utmost faith in said Debian.org sysadmins. And I applaud their open-source approach to the attack. You really wouldn't ever see something like that coming anyone else.

That's a lot, coming from me... I'm usually pretty pessimistic .. ;)

Re:Password was *sniffed*

[Wyzard]

That's a good reason to use public-key authentication with SSH, rather than password authentication. That way, the attacker looking at SucKIT's logfile only sees a challenge-response exchange, which can't be replayed thanks to timestamping.

Root password

[phorm]

Once an infiltrator is in a machine, it is often just a matter of time before he acquires root access - unless monitoring or disablement are standard procedure.

Depending on the power of the box and the time from which the lower-level account was compromized, it could just be that a password-cracking procedure gained root access. Of course, it's also possible that the attacker managed to nab control of a process running as root, but again the initial compromise still required cracking a password to gain access to the machine.

First rule, secure your passwords... and it's probably not a bad idea to use a password cracklib to ensure that any semi-privileged (can SSH) users have somewhat secure passwords as well.

Easy solution

[therufus]

Install windows. You'll never have to wonder if your system is being compromised, you'll know it is.

Oh, and "password" is not really a "password".

#1 on Ten Immutable Laws of Security

[Saint Stephen]

I worked at Microsoft, so Microsoft's list is my frame of reference:
Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.

Re:#1 on Ten Immutable Laws of Security

[prockcore]

Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.

That's why I've been saying for years that all my computers are owned by Bill Gates.

Re:#1 on Ten Immutable Laws of Security

[Gleef]

Not that I even like Microsoft's security list, since it's very Windows-centric, I'll bite.

Law #1 doesn't apply here. The intruder sniffed a password, and ran his own software. As far as I know, nobody was tricked into running malicious software. Law #1 should read, for real OS's
"Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your account, its not your account anymore."

The first failure, as per this list was Law #5 "Weak passwords trump strong security." Someone didn't properly protect their password, this gave the attacker their foot in the door.

The second failure was the unidentified privilege escalation. This doesn't appear to fit any of the laws (they appear to be written assuming privilege escallation is trivial, I guess that says something about Windows). Except perhaps, Law #10: "Technology is not a panacaea". Just because we run well designed software that has few security holes doesn't mean that we run perfectly designed software that has no security holes.

Occasionally something slips through the cracks, like here, and it's good to know that real people are paying real attention, and that there are effective ways of bringing necessary systems back up in a trusted fashion. Eventually, this escallation will be found, fixed, and machines patched.

Re:#1 on Ten Immutable Laws of Security

[SamNmaX]

I wish Microsoft had more to say about this "Law #1". I think the personal computer is in dire need of a serious security overhaul. Running a program shouldn't equate to giving it total access to your computer. Obviously it's impossible to cover for all issues, but something as simple as double clicking on an application (or attachment) SHOULD NOT be able to wreak havok on your computer. Most programs only access files that the user explicitly asks for in a dialog box, so why should they get access to everything? All programs should by default be around the equivalent of a sandbox, mixed with a UI that implicitly gives a program access only to files the user chooses in some manner. Only programs that absolutely need access to the entire system should get it, such as virus scanners. (which hopefully wouldn't be needed in such a system)

A simple disaster-mgmnt starrtegy...

[jkrise]

Since Linux has no use for hidden files, registry, active directory, complicated booting procecdures and other useless features that come standard with Windows - I see no point getting worked up about these so-called Security Warnings.

99% of Slashdot readers, I believe, treat viruses, worms and other 'security' attacks as a NUISANCE rather than a PRIVACY hazard. A Service Pack or bug fix a week for Windows merely highlights the fact that data privacy on a 'personal' computer is a joke. The nuisance of reinstalling the Windows OS from CD, and reinstalling each and every app with the zillions of settings OR buying expensive, uunreliable 3rd party s/w for disaster recovery can be intolerable.

With Linux, OTOH, simple tools exist that can take backups of disk data (not disk images, just the files), AFTRER installing the apps. A simple restore of these files gets the system back, with all settings and screen-savers intact.

To sum up, 99% of Slashdot readers do not need to care about these security risks, if they choose Linux for their personal or office systems.Those with Windows - a switch to Linux is cheaper than anti-virus s/w PLUS OS cost PLUS frequent updates PLUS frequent reinstalls PLUS loss of data PLUS nuisance.

-

Human Error or faulty security models?

[Anonymous Coward]

SELinux would likely have prevented the root exploit from allowing this individual from doing as much harm as was done.

I think that it's time for the big names like Debian, Slackware, Red Hat etc to start implementing it on their network connected machines. It's being incorporated into the stock kernel for a reason. Use it!

Re:Human Error or faulty security models?

[Coryoth]

2.6 does indeed have the LSM integrated in - that's step of abstraction up from the original SELinux. It is essentially a set of appropriate hooks into the kernel for running SELinux style security. There are actually other packages (LIDS for instance) that use this system.

The end result is: We will soon have a very strong security model built in to the standard stable kernel. The sad thing is that it will be off by default, and you will still need the set of userland tools that use it.

We have an excellent opportunity (with the 2.6 release) to seriously increase the security of Linux systems. People need to start promoting LSM modules and programs NOW so that we can get this to be the default state of most installed Linux boxes.

Jedidiah

Ammended for the rest of us:

[Anonymous Coward]

Law #1: If Bill can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.

What could be done better...

[rxed]

Quote: "All the compromised machines were running recent kernels[1] and were
up-to-date with almost all security updates[2]."

Well, it seems that 'almost' just isn't good enough. Perhaps there is more to the break in (like unknown holes)?

Sniffing passwords? They must be using 'almost patched' version of SSHd.

Re:What could be done better...

[wichert]

The 'almost' is explained later on in the article. The one missing update was a postgres fix which could
never have been used to gain root privileges

Openness is good

[iamdrscience]

I like how when debian's servers are cracked they tell you about it and furthermore, remind you again later with the details. If a similar thing happened with Microsoft it would be hushed down and certainly no details about it would be publicized later. Come to think of it, even a commercial Linux company like Red Hat might be weary in dealing with a similar issue as well -- I think they'd be likely to be open about it, but you never know what's going to happen when money and stock prices are involved.

Unknown Debian exploit?

[t0ny]

Im sure glad my network runs on Windows!

Re:Unknown Debian exploit?

[flacco]

Im sure glad my network runs on Windows!

hey it is pretty nice - i'm having a look around right now!

local root == remote root

[Markus Registrada]

This is a good demonstration that the distinction always made between local privilege-elevation bugs and remote exploits is academic hair-splitting. It's rarely difficult to get unprivileged access through a buggy non-privileged service. (Web-server plug-ins are a reliable source of entry points.) Once you're in, privilege elevation takes you the rest of the way.

Certainly the distinction is useful to security students and analysts, but it's misleading for everybody else. "Oh, that one's just a local exploit; not so bad." The OpenBSD advocates promote the fallacy: "only one remote exploit in this millennium!" (or something like that), encouraging us to ignore almost equally damaging exploits in non-core services that provide access to local accounts and more damaging attacks.

There's a similar fallacy in distinguishing security holes from other bugs. Without a depth of analysis that hardly anybody can ever afford, almost any bug might actually be a security hole, too. The OpenBSD people get this one right -- to them, any bug is a security hole until proven otherwise, and they encourage running latest versions -- but almost everybody else gets it wrong. When I fixed a double-free segfault in lib[mumble], nobody posted security warnings about every program that relies on it. despite that double-free bugs can often be exploited.

Debian gets this wrong, and very selectively backports only proven security holes, ignoring the myriad bugfixes that might just as easily be security holes as well. To find holes in stable-branch services, just look for bug fixes in later versions, particularly in libraries used by those services. Failing that, look at new features added shortly before the library-version used. Chances are the last new feature added has bugs that haven't been noted yet, and that might be exploitable.

This might be a good place to mention that the CVS codebase is almost irreparably insecure. The practical implications are: (1) A remotely-accessible CVS server should never be run on a host that does anything else that matters, or that has access to anything else; (2) An anonymous CVS server should never be the same CVS server that is used for checkins, or even run on the same machine. The pserver should be a slave that only gets read access to a copy of the archive. (3) Checkins on remotely-accessible servers should result in patches logged to another archive kept on another, not-remotely-accessible machine. Patches from that server should be posted to the mailing list.

local root != remote root

[placeclicker]

Huge diffrence.

You still need a local account to make use of a local root exploit.

You don't for remote root exploits.

Remote root exploits can be used in worms, local (for the most part) cannot.

Not to say that local root exploits should be overlooked, especially when they seem realtivly simple to create (e.g., bad symlinks)

Besides, this is supposedly an *UNKNOWN* local root exploit..

Of course there are unknown exploits

[Animats]

The serious attackers don't publicize the ones they develop. They save them for use on worthwhile targets.

This is why security by patching is fundamentally ineffective against enemies, as opposed to nusances.

Sad day for Debian

[swordsaintzero]

As long as a machine is connected to the internet there is going to be a method to compromise it. My question is this why Debian? They are the only Linux distribution that is truly built by volunteers to gain any mindshare of real note. (not sure about slack so please dont sick bob dobs on me) This is not imhop the work of rank amatuer crackers with there first root kit. These were servers being run by experienced admins using a distro known for stability which when patched and up to date usually means somewhat difficult to hack. I seriously doubt these guys were running winders attempting this either. Wtf is happening to the community when people with talent are attacking a distro that yet again imhop doesnt suck. These guys need to be found and buried. Not by the police but by the commmunity. Last but not least (places tinfoil hat on head) could this have been funded by M$ trying to discredit linux. I cant see the glory angle so its got to be money or power. (no glory in getting called a dick when you tell your friends what you did)

Re:Sad day for Debian

[trick-knee]

> Wtf is happening to the community when people with talent are attacking
> a distro that yet again imhop doesnt suck. These guys need to be found and
> buried. Not by the police but by the commmunity.

hear, hear.

it's not a sad day for Debian so much as it is for the community. if Debian can find this supposed new exploit, fix it and publish details, then Debian will rise a little higher in people's esteem.

but why crack Debian in the first place? here I am stumped, but then I've never fully understood the cracker mentality.

Re:Sad day for Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok to attack things you consider immoral but not to consider things you consider moral.

I'll pass that on to the people who shoot abortion clinic doctors and crash passenger jets into tall buildings containing civilians.

Re:Sad day for Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaiming debian crack on M$ tactics = paranoid.
Blaiming Linux kernel CVS hack on M$ = paranoid.
Blaiming SCO shenanigans on M$ = paranoid.

Put the three together and maybe we shouldn't think it's paranoia, after all, who has the most to gain by discrediting Linux?

ldap?

[rsax]

Obviously we can't continue without LDAP accounts for very long either.

Can someone who's familiar with system administration on those debian boxes clarify the above statement? Have they disabled LDAP accounts or was it implied that they're going to set up authentication with a ldap backend in the future. If it's the latter then I'm curious as to how having ldap in the equation would have made cracking those system accounts harder.

Re:ldap?

[Anonymous Coward]

The accounts are stored in LDAP tree at db.debian.org[1]. However, when the compromise was noticed, all accounts are locked down, and they still are. Which is very very bad with regard to the continous developement of the Debian distribution, as I and all other developers can't log in to the developement machines, package uploads aren't being processed, many crucial internal services (such as testing propagation) are down.

That's what he meant by his comment - the Debian Project is effectively halted by this - and obviously that can't go on for long.

[1] You can obtain a listing of these by running the command ldapsearch -h db.debian.org -x -b dc=debian,dc=org '(objectClass=debiandeveloper)' from a internet-connected host.

SuckIt Exploit

[Elik]

I have dealt with this rootkit for nearly 4 months when it first appeared. The fairly safe methods for avoiding this is by 3 steps which I have used and it works well since then.

Move the /tmp to it own partition and set it as noexec, nosuid and give it plenty of space, around 200 to 500 megs for it.

Patch the kernel with either Grsecurity or Openwall Patch on 2.4.22 kernel and set it as mononthlic kernel, not modular with no open hooks for adding additional modules.

Then I installed the suphp module for PHP to run scripts as users instead of nobody, especially when people trying to exploit it. I get it at www.suphp.org and it works extremely well. Since the changes, I haven't seen any rootkits being successfully implemented on the servers I admin. And note the fact that I manages over 260 servers for various clients points to the track records.

What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[PurpleFloyd]

To me, this attack and the recent attempt to insert an exploit into the Linux kernel seem like possible evidence of a disturbing trend: skilled attacks against high-profile Linux sites (you can't get much higher-profile than kernel.org or debian.org). I'm pretty sure that these systems were secured against all known local root exploits; if they weren't, this probably would have happened long ago.

So, what's going on here? Are these simply two unrelated attacks? Is it an attempt by an immature highschooler with some cracking talent to boast to his friends "LOL 1 hax0rred debian.org!?" Is it an attempt by some sort of anti-Linux commandoes to undermine Linux's public image? I almost suspect the latter, but the prime suspect there is Microsoft, who have far too much to lose by going that route and plenty of money for traditional FUD that will make it into "traditional" news channels better anyway. SCO might be crazy enough to do it, but they probably wouldn't want to divert resources away from spewing lawsuits at everyone in existence.

From what I understand of the cracker community, Linux is held in fairly high regard (although I admit I don't try to keep up on the latest in the cracker community). You'd think that black-hats, who tend to be rather immature, when armed with a brand new exploit, would attack a site seen by the general public and post goatse.cx images on the front page, rather than subtly changing Debian packages. So, who's behind all this?

Re:What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[sqrt529]

It was bitkeepers cvs, not kernel.org which was compromised.

Re:What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? People are assholes. There are plenty of people in the world who want to make a quick buck or have a laugh at someone else's expense. They don't give a fuck about open source moral high-ground, they don't give a fuck about Microsoft's hegemony, they don't give a fuck about you. They want to break your shit, take your identity, steal your money and send kiddie porn spam from your box.

Wake up. Linux has become more popular, more mainstream and there is much to be gained by owning your boxes. The most surprising thing about all this is that people are surprised it's happening. It sure was nice when Microsoft was the only target in the world but times have changed. It's time to grow up and realize that this is everyone's problem.

Re:What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[segment]

I'm pretty sure that these systems were secured against all known local root exploits; if they weren't, this probably would have happened long ago.

Apparently not so secure they were now were they.

So, what's going on here? Are these simply two unrelated attacks? Is it an attempt by an immature highschooler with some cracking talent to boast to his friends "LOL 1 hax0rred debian.org!?" Is it an attempt by some sort of anti-Linux commandoes to undermine Linux's public image? I almost suspect the latter, but the prime suspect there is Microsoft, who have far too much to lose by going that route and plenty of money for traditional FUD that will make it into "traditional" news channels better anyway. SCO might be crazy enough to do it, but they probably wouldn't want to divert resources away from spewing lawsuits at everyone in existence.

This is the most far out shit I've seen to date and it's sickening to think someone took this bullshit and mod'ed this trollish "Bill Gates hates Linux so much he gcc -o vixie vixie.c ; ./vixie'd kernel dot org" ... Pitiful

From what I understand of the cracker community, Linux is held in fairly high regard (although I admit I don't try to keep up on the latest in the cracker community).

FYI if you took some vitamin clue you would know Linux is not that far behind MS on security exploits. Now now now, before the Linux zealots bash get real and look it up. Linux is the second most attacked machine, now you're going to say because it's what the second highest used OS? Let's see, I have about 200k visitors for the month on one of my sites, first place for OS visits MS, second.. OSX you see what I typed there, followed by Linux, sure content wise would make the diff if you want to go there, but you'd be looking for an excuse to justify the shoddy security put into Linux.

Now I won't go into the BSD's, because I just won't nor will I go into Solaris, but do your homework, Linux `used to be` all that, nowadays I look at it as LiNuX vErSiOn v.666... A toy nothing more and don't even use it anymore, nor will I advocate it. It went from something cool into the new MS'like farce

You'd think that black-hats, who tend to be rather immature, when armed with a brand new exploit, would attack a site seen by the general public and post goatse.cx images on the front page, rather than subtly changing Debian packages.

You think about this instead of your lame MS conspiracy theory... If you're an attacker, and wanted to make a name for yourself, you would probably target a heavy site, an entire operating system spread throughout the world, and you would be an underground legend.

A criminal looking for a backdoor worldwide, and you would be rich. The possibilities are endless. Do you think that a man with so much to lose by committing such an asinine crime as the one you mentioned would stoop so low? You must be smoking oxy with Rush.

So, who's behind all this?

Better call my lawyer again before I get blamed for this shit too

Re:What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[marcello_dl]

The timing of the attack (just before the release of 3.0r2 and almost coincidental with the discovery of an OSX remote vulnerability) is interesting, too.

A resourceful black-hat hacker hitting debian just to boast "its" ego would have probably "signed" the attack somehow. On the other side, if i were trying to spread FUD about Linux with an attack, i'd do the same: pretending that a single immature highschooler could hax0r Debian would add insult to damage and hide the real motive.

Re:What's up with these anti-Linux attacks?

[Ogerman]

FYI if you took some vitamin clue you would know Linux is not that far behind MS on security exploits. Now now now, before the Linux zealots bash get real and look it up. Linux is the second most attacked machine ... but you'd be looking for an excuse to justify the shoddy security put into Linux.

FYI, this has nothing to do with "shoddy security put into Linux". Fact is, a properly secured Linux server is overall more secure than a properly secured Windows server. The problem is that most *distros* (and yes, this includes Debian) have fairly shoddy security by default. Then you have a lot of people who don't know what they're doing trying to use these distros to run real-world sites. Therefore, they are an easy target. (and generally more "interesting" to crackers.. what fun/glory is a compromised Windows box?) From the explanation given, it does not sound like the Debian admins had enough security experience (or paranoia :). You simply DO NOT run a high-profile site without an ACL-protected kernel (ie. LIDS, SELinux, etc.) This is not because Linux itself cannot be trusted, but because some of your services may not be. Even better is to also use kernel stack protection. But anyhow, the Debian admins will learn from their mistakes and the project will be stronger as a result.

now I won't go into the BSD's, because I just won't nor will I go into Solaris, but do your homework, Linux `used to be` all that, nowadays I look at it as LiNuX vErSiOn v.666... A toy nothing more and don't even use it anymore, nor will I advocate it. It went from something cool into the new MS'like farce

Now you're really blowing a lot of random hot air. Either you're a silly troll or you're one of those trendy anti-trend folks who thinks anything popular can't be cool/good. I guess IBM has decided to refocus its corporate vision around selling toys, eh? Riiight..

Debian physical site security?

[identity0]

Okay, I read the article and it said that at least one machine was at a remote location that couldn't be accessed - can anyone tell me what kind of physical setup debian project uses? I always get the impression that they're based out of some dude's dorm or basement, like in this OpenBSD image. Do they have any physical security measures at all around their boxes?

Re:Debian physical site security?

[amck]

The primary Debian machines are in colo facilities
in the US and Netherlands (there are buildd machines available to debian developers in various locations). The machines are beefy enough - HP
recently donated a server with 48 GB RAM, for example. I believe the bandwidth out of ftp.debian.org is Gigabit ethernet (and having only that to the mirrors will be a bottleneck
when sarge is released!)

So, no, they're not in some dudes basement; we have good facilities courtesy of our sponsors.

- Alastair

Re:Debian physical site security?

[wichert]

Most machines are in colocation facilities and all the normal colo access rules apply to them. That is why I could immediately get to klecker physically (luckily its colo is moving to a new site and we'll get our own access pass for the colo). The only machines that are in locations like peoples homes or dorms are those for which regular physical access is required, for example to experiment with new (or old) architectures.

Um, what?

[bonch]

They said the password was sniffed.

Try to shunt this off to a "weak password" all you want, but let's face facts here. A beloved Linux network was clobbered.

Yes, Virgina, Linux is not invincible. You have rootkits and exploits too. Just see Linuxsecurity sometime.

And, yes, it makes all the Linux loonies who rail on about Microsoft insecurities look like religious hypocrites.

Karma Bonus unchecked, because I don't expect this to be well-received by biased moderators.

Re:Um, what?

[Yottabyte84]

My box was 0wned a while ago. They got my password when I ssh'd out from a shell account on a compromized machine (that'll teach me to trust other admins) and got root by using 'sudo bash --login' and entering my password. They installed suckit, and then started scping something from somewhere while I was logged in to X. I noticed, and promptly powered off my DSL modem, and got to work cleaning up.

So much for unbiased Slashdot

[bonch]

Look at all the posts...excuses and rationalizations. "Well, this serves as an example of weak passwords" or "non-root privileges," etc.

You never see that level of rational explanation when it comes to a user-transmitted e-mail Outlook worm. In fact, in those cases it magically becomes a "Microsoft hole," even though it's users running the executable!

I know this won't be well-recevied, so Karma Bonus is unchecked accordingly. Nonetheless, it's my opinion and I believe it. Slashdotters are hypocrites and hold double-standards.

Re:So much for unbiased Slashdot

[ishark]

Look at all the posts...excuses and rationalizations. "Well, this serves as an example of weak passwords" or "non-root privileges," etc.

Actually, what I see is people warning of a possible security hole in the wild.

You never see that level of rational explanation when it comes to a user-transmitted e-mail Outlook worm. In fact, in those cases it magically becomes a "Microsoft hole," even though it's users running the executable!

This is because one of the "strong" points which is claimed by windows is that it's designed to be used by non-tech experts, while at the same time it offers NO protection from mistakes. If outlook were modified so that it cannot execute anything and you must manually save to disk and execute whatever you would see (beside a drop in virus infections) fingers pointed at the users instead of Microsoft.

Re:So much for unbiased Slashdot

[Alioth]

Slashdot is NOT supposed to be unbiased. It's called /. for heaven's sake - if it was a Microsoft oriented site it would be \. (backslashdot.org)

Re:So much for unbiased Slashdot

[jadavis]

Slashdotters are hypocrites and hold double-standards.

You're saying slashdot posters are inconsistant, but they're just different people who all happen to read slashdot. If you want to make a real argument, pick one person and attack their inconsistancies.

Another example is the political parties. You can't say that Democrats are inconsistant because of this, that, and the other. Democrats are a varied group, and they have many different perspectives and form their arguments in different, often contradictary ways. They just see a common means to their end, and each individual may be 100% consistant. (note: I'm not a democrat, I just used them as an example. This works with any political party that I can think of.)

Ultimately what you're doing is grouping variety of people together (slashdot readers) and then attacking the group as a whole for being inconsistant with respect to a separate issue (their perspectives about computer security).

You can do that to anyone. For example: "Blondes are so inconsistant. First they complain that the environment is being damaged, then the next week they're complaining about too much government regulation." Well, being blonde obviously has nothing to do with the topic, so of course you find inconsistancies in their viewpoint.

That type of reasoning is very simple-minded. The world is a complicated place with myriad possible groupings of people. Analogies that relate nations, corporations, SIGs, etc. to people often confuse the issue beyond repair. Microsoft isn't a "bully," it's just that the shareholders elect people that are likely to use aggressive business tactics and leverage the monopoly that they have to gain shareholder value. You can't punish MS in any way analogous to punishing a bully, because the shareholders could be long gone by now (however many years it takes to settle an antitrust lawsuit), because it's simply not a person, it's a group. Same with nations, it's a group and should not be personified. Think how much time the media has wasted talking about Bush as though he "doesn't play well with others." Nations are groups, not people.

Re:So much for unbiased Slashdot

[thenextpresident]

Well, no, your wrong, even if you think it's your opinion. Opinions can be wrong when they are based on misplaced fact.

First, we aren't talking about a desktop system getting hacked, we are talking about a server getting hacked. Secondly, a hack is a hack. If people at Debian let this slip, then it's their fault in the end. Whether it was MS or Debian, it would be the same thing: they screwed up.

Secondly, Debian doesn't develop all the software they distribute, or even use. Microsoft, however, developed Outlook. So, if a cracker gets into Debian because of an insecure application, it's not Debian coders at fault. However, a cracker that gets in via Outlook, well, it's MS's fault because they developed Outlook. (One could argue it was neither's fault, and rather the crackers fault, but that's another story).

Thirdly, you can't compare these two because of the open/closed source nature of either company. If MS were hacked into, how much information would they provide? How about Debian? What concerns me more isn't that Debian was hacked, but how many times has MS been hacked, and we haven't known about it.

Fourthly, you want to blame the user for the foul up when they execute a worm. First, a cracker and a work are two different things, and really can't be compared. However, looking at the work, it merely executes on Windows. The problem is that the security model for Windows sucks (it does, and any belief to the contrary is the same thing as admitting you don't care about security, and know nothing about it), that it allows all of this.

Finally, you say there are a bunch of excuses and rationalizations with all of these posts. This happens, whether it's Linux or Microsoft. The difference is that with Linux, we can check, while with Microsoft, we can't check. We have to go with what they tell us. If they say "Oh, it's merely a small problem," is their any way for us to actually verify this? No. But with Linux, it's usually open and verifiable. And what would you have the people do if they found out the crack was because of a bad password? Lie and say it was something worse. If it was a bad password, it was a bad password, nothing more. But with Linux, this can be verified, whereas with MS, this can't be.

Maybe you enjoy being lied to. I don't.

Two useful utilities to flush out the rootkits

[Taco Cowboy]

Here are two useful utilities to flush out the SucKIT rootkit:


Kernel Security Therapy Anti-Trolls

and

Kernel Security Checker

Have a nice day !

Brian Regan

[Anonymous Coward]

Teacher: "Erwin, what is the plural for Ox?"
Erwin: "Oxen. The farmer used his oxen."
Teacher: "Brian!"
Brian: "Whaaaat?"
Teacher: "What's the plural for Box?"
Brian: "Boxen. I bought two boxen of doughnuts."
Teacher: "No, Brian, you're an idiot."

Teacher: "Let's try another one. Erwin, what's the plural for goose?"
Erwin: "Geese. I saw a flock of geese."
Teacher: "Brian!"
Brian: "Whaaaat?
Teacher: "Brian, what's the plural for Moose?"

Brian: "Moosen! I saw a flock of moosen! There... there were many of them. Many much of them. Many much moosen. They were out in the woods... in the woodsen! They were eating grass... greese! The meese were eating greese in the woodsen! They were looking for the foodis to eatinisit! out in the woodingenis... in the woodenis... in the woodingenisenisen!

Teacher: "Brian, you're an imbecile."
Brian: "Imbecilen!"

Re:Brian Regan

[Mattcelt]

...and thus we have "spice is the variety of wife"! I get it now!

the linux attitude prevents real security...

[a_hofmann]

it's a sad thing that everyone seems to be so confident in their latest super secure linux setup, the power of fast and often patched open source software or the openess in such issues - so much that nobody takes these problems serious enough.

for every exploit known (and fixed) publically you can bet there are two yet undisclosed and maybe in the hands of the wrong people...

concepts like public key crypto (ssh, ssl), stack guarding (say no to buffer overflows) or process jail (try to escalate privileges from there) are thus essential to implement real security. still ease of setup or performance seems to be more important than safe networking.

perhaps the big desaster has to happen before people understand that projects like openbsd or selinux are not your tinfoil-hat wearing neighbor's business but the only serious choice for any public, responsible service provider.

Re:biometrics

[God! Awful 2]

Palm scanning only proves you have the hand of someone allowed to access a system. Retina scanning only proves you have the eyeball of someone allowed to access a system.

Well, the manufacturers of palm/retina scanners generally do include a feature that detects if the bodypart being scanned has a pulse. So you can't fool these scanners just by cutting off someone's hand or ripping out their eyeball. (Although it might be possible to manufacture fake contact lenses or glue-on fingerprints that would work.)

On the other hand, the basic weakness is that the biometric signature is still just a big password. You can "sniff" the signature by installing a fake reader. You can steal the signature off the harddrive of the domain controller. You can bypass the reader by splicing the wire. And your "password" is the same for every site.

Bottom line: I would sooner trust a token card.

-a

suckit ...

[Pegasus]

This reminds me of a shit we had back in the april at the place where i work. We got a couple of production server r00ted with suckit, with the only possible attack vector being apache/php (only port 80 was open in the firewall), that were latest versions back then. The only way to stop it was to recompile a kernel without modules support and some minor patches to deny writes to /dev/kmem in any possible way ... therefore killing the method suckit uses to load itself. See point 6 here and here.
There were quite a lot of similiar reports from the folks all aronud at that time ...

My big hairy conspiracy theory would be in the line of super zonda type of organization hiring some of the most skilled crackers and r00ting the boxen all around ... for spamming, ddosing or whatever ... welcome to the Wild Wild Net.

Re:Something big is missing

[wichert]

One if the reasons we are taking so long with all this is that we simply do not know how exactly root was gained. When we do do and we have a fix we will gladly reveal that along with a security advisory detailing how you can protect your systems as well.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[Wudbaer]

You don't need to be a Microsoft or SCO to have fun vandalizing other people's systems. This is the same mentality like when someone destroys bus stops, telephone booths and other public property or the flower beds in the park some volunteers put up the week before on their own time and money. It is against the common good, but being an asshole that person just doesn't care.

Doesn't seem very logical..

[naitro]

An attacker who has access to unpublic local root exploits probably won't use a public kiddie-rootkit like Suckit.

And I hardly believe that an experienced cracker would backdoor the boxes in such an uncareful manner. Weird..

Defeat binary evil!

[DrHyde]

Note that the main ftp archive running on a sparc machine was not compromised, so the exploit might not yet be ported to non-i386 architectures.

So if we run Linux on Sparc, and Solaris on x86, we're safe!

No OS can ever be 100% secure, but.........

[DFJA]

Proprietary OSes will ultimately be left behind Open Source OSes in terms of security for the following reason. In the fight against proprietary OS's such as Microshaft's, there is a big propaganda war with both sides saying "Look, your OS is insecure". Both OS's will have security holes discovered, and hopefully fixed, from time to time. That is a fact we have to live with. The rate at which they are discovered and fixed is roughly proportional to the number of people actively investigating holes in the OS (ignoring the fact that there might be other, political reasons to look for security holes one OS rather than another). However as time goes on, we should expect the number of users of Debian (and GNU/Linux in general) to increase, hence the number of people discovering and fixing security holes will go up in proportion. This is the 'many eyeballs' effect. this will lead to GNU/Linux becoming ultimately very secure. In contrast the number of people actively looking for security holes in, say windows, is proportional to the amount of money their perpetraitors (sic) are willing to spend in this task. This does not go up in proportion to the number of users. In fact as competition pushes prices down for proprietary offerings, the perpetrators find they have progressively _less_ money to spend on looking for security holes. Ultimately they will get left behind. So we should see that Open Source OSes such as GNU/Linux will become more and more secure at a rate which accelerates much faster than for proprietary OSes. At the moment, we have one OS which is used by 95% of the world's desktops, and scores fairly low on security (although it is improving). On the other hand, we have GNU/Linux which is used on something like 2% of the world's desktops (more on servers), and scores fairly high on security (although it's not perfect). So from this small user-base, we have already benefitted from the 'many eyeballs' effect of Open Source to gain an advantage over the competition in this respect. This advantage can only accelerate, for the reasons I have outlined above. Ultimately we should expect to see Open Source winning on all fronts in terms of reliability, functionality and security. It will never be perfect and there will always be crackers trying to spoil the party, but it will be a lot better than today's situation. We just need to work hard to make this happen sooner rather than later, as it will be a long haul...........

Other distros affected???

[Malc]

Everybody here is talking about an unknown exploit in Debian. What I haven't seen is a discussion on the probability that this might affect other distros too. Is it Debian specific, or Linux, or even UNIX (based on an app) specific? Let's not be complacent here.

the unknown

[maximilln]

This is really the heart of the issue: the unknown exploits. I've often been at the forefront of theorizing about possible vectors for unknown exploits. I'm usually flamed severely for it. The fact of the matter is that these unknown exploits exist and people need to be ready to deal with them.

If a "bad" hacker comes up with a new root exploit he's not going to e-mail all of the "good" hackers and let them know. He's going to make use of it mercilessly until he's noticed and caught. Microsoft ignores this issue outright and the OSS community tends to skate around it. If the computing public as a whole knew the facts about security then McAfee and Norton wouldn't even be in business. "Updating virus definitions" twice a week is still going to be ten weeks behind the hardcore caffeinated malicious hacker.

The OSS community has dealt with this issue in the most productive manner possible: complete openness and timely notice. Microsoft, on the other hand, would happily allow millions of users to remain compromised for months or years until their internal programmers manage to find the "unknown local root exploit". This could easily result in identities and credit card numbers stolen, bank accounts infiltrated, and possibly even malicious interference with real life relationships and employers just for fun.

Should the software manufacturer be liable? No. Should the user be entitled to know? Yes.

The OSS community is the only solution which addresses this situation correctly.

time of attack

[Anonymous Coward]

take a look at the time of the attacks.

The attacker stoped at 19:00h and started back at 5:00h.

Now from this time, and assuming the attacker is like most computer guys I know, he would sleep around 2-3 AM, and wake up around 11-12.
This would place the attacker at 6-8+ GMT hours.

that is, in china, Mongolia, Rusia or Indonesia.

Re:biometrics

[ChaosDiscord]

Well, the manufacturers of palm/retina scanners generally do include a feature that detects if the bodypart being scanned has a pulse.

One would hope so, but the evidence isn't as promising.

What debian's not said, clarifications speculation

[fw3]

I beleive the additional details of this exploit are roughly:

A debian developer (who I'm not going to name but it's not exactly a secret) revealed his password by logging into some machine that had been rooted. Shame on him for using the same password, and the Debian project for not policing that kind of thing. (That said, people do this all the time, even people who do/ought to know better.)

The password 'sniffing' being referenced is not sniffing network packets but rather session IO. If you read the 'developer cleanup' instructions it will be clear that they beleive that the 4 dev boxes that were rooted were being used to collect account and password info from developer's sessions. (Another procedure error, the systems in question probably should not be allowing users with shell access to ssh out to other machines.)

There has been a LOT of speculation that there's a privilege-escalation vulnerability in the kernel version running on the target systems and/or up to the 2.4.22 kernel (I'm dubious, however 2.4.23 has just been released today so who knows).

As many here and elsewhere have wondered, it seems unlikely that a 'kiddie would have access to somthing not yet observed in the wild, and if this is the work of more capable 'bad guys' then it seems equally unlikely that they would have been so noisy as to have been caught in less than a day.

Leaving us really not knowing much about the state of either debian or the kernel at this time. I certainly hope that a more complete complete 'explantaion' will be coming, hopefully soon.